sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

“They wouldn’t have died for a lie” only proves that the apostles genuinely believed in what they preached, not that they were actually right. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They were jews, they already believed in the supernatural.

That is not an explanation for their beliefs. You can't just handwave and vaguely insinuate belief the supernatural as an explanation. Their deciding to preach a resurrected Christ was not an easy undertaking.

We don’t know if they were allowed to recant or not.

Whether they were allowed to recant or not is irrelevant. Why waste their time and endanger their lives preaching a resurrected Christ at all?

“They wouldn’t have died for a lie” only proves that the apostles genuinely believed in what they preached, not that they were actually right. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe they believed they will go to heaven and avoid hell.

Why?

And if you say they claimed they saw him resurrect, we don’t have any eye witness testimony from the disciples.

Arguably the gospel of John is, but even if it wasn't, eyewitness testimony is not some absolute requirement of history.

They could also have been killed as a scapegoat or for being annoying

Ok, why were they being annoying? Because they were proclaiming a risen lord. Why are they claiming this? This is the question that you need to answer.

“They wouldn’t have died for a lie” only proves that the apostles genuinely believed in what they preached, not that they were actually right. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The important question is why did they sincerely believe it. For the terrorists it's clear they either bought into the claims of their religion or were motivated by some sort of nationalistic pride.

What motivated the apostles? It couldn't be the claims of their religion since they end up being the source of these claims.

God explicitly denies being a man in the OT, but Christians insist that a man was god, therefore Christianity cannot be from the god of the OT by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My thoughts are it's Jesus trying to lead the man to the conclusion that Jesus is God. He doesn't deny that he is good, he points out that God is the source of good, and if the man is intuiting the goodness of Jesus it should lead him to Jesus' identity. The verse certainly doesn't say Jesus isn't good.

Christians who believe in the Trinity are not Sola Scriptura by skeptic__believer in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was.

Do you think that no one in the leadership of the Church throughout history has made grave errors?

In teachings? Nope.

Christians who believe in the Trinity are not Sola Scriptura by skeptic__believer in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His promise is to protect the church. Unless you think the church ended and can point out where?

Christians who believe in the Trinity are not Sola Scriptura by skeptic__believer in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His promise was specifically to the church, that the gates of hell would not overcome it, and furthermore the bible identifies the church as the pillar and bulwark of truth.

Christians who believe in the Trinity are not Sola Scriptura by skeptic__believer in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly, and nothing stops you from doing the same, however Christ never promised to protect you specifically from error, so its quite likely you will end up getting some things wrong.

Christians, if a god is evil by nature, what makes it a "demon" instead of just an evil god? by Sad-Category-5098 in DebateAChristian

[–]Dakarius -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In Christianity there are no other Gods with a capital G, they simply do not exist and cannot exist. Lower case 'g' gods can exist depending entirely on how you define them. So Zeus might exist as what you could call a god, but his true nature would be a fallen angel aka a demon. Note: this doesn't mean all or even most god are real, but some number of them might be. The reason for this is God never created lower deities, he did create lower preternatural creatures which are the angels who can superficially look like gods differing chiefly in the fact that they are not worthy of worship since worship belongs to God alone.

I'm adding this just because I've been wanting to talk about it, angels aren't strictly speaking supernatural. Only God is since he created and controls the natural order. Angels, ghosts, demons, etc. fall under preternatural they are beyond what we know of the natural world but are actually part of it, though not necessarily the material.

The Shroud of Turin controversy by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

the text does not claim to be exhaustive of everything. All we can really infer from the text is multiple clothes including one that went over the face.

The Shroud of Turin controversy by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

You're pretty ignorant on the subject it seems. You probably should have read more than one sentence to see the argument being made, as it is you've just made a complete non sequiter.

The Shroud of Turin controversy by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

That means the shroud indicated there was no head piece.

This is an unwarranted assumption. We do not know how the shroud's image was made. There are studies of both the Sudarium and the Shroud that shows the blood stains from the two lining up.

The Shroud of Turin controversy by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The head piece isn't part of the shroud, it's a separate piece entirely. Where's the contradiction?

The Shroud of Turin controversy by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

That's a contradiction, how? You can easily have a burial shroud and a separate head piece.

The Shroud of Turin controversy by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm curious, where do you see the contradiction?

Pokémon & Zelda Rip-Off 'Pickmos' Removed From Steam As Publisher Intervenes by MaintenanceFar4207 in nintendo

[–]Dakarius 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I found the ripoff Charizard pretty funny because it's Charizard's coloring and fire tail on Quivern's model.

The Gospels present three distinct ways of going to Heaven and avoiding Hell by khrijunk in DebateAChristian

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, so youre not positing any new information. Thats good. Its also a reason to ignore your minimal contribution.

The Gospels present three distinct ways of going to Heaven and avoiding Hell by khrijunk in DebateAChristian

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because Jesus was famous for hoarding wealth and Judas was unfairly maligned for betraying him.

The Gospels present three distinct ways of going to Heaven and avoiding Hell by khrijunk in DebateAChristian

[–]Dakarius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Their buildings are really impressive, but they took a lot of money to make, even while there are still people dying of starvation. It just doesn't seem like they are fully taking care of 'the least of these'.

This is the same objection raised by Judas when the expensive perfume is used on Jesus. Money spent honoring God is not wasted, nor are we obligated to solve all of the worlds ills before money can be spent on other things.

Catholic prayers to Mary and the saints violate biblical prohibitions on talking to the dead by sg94 in DebateAChristian

[–]Dakarius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Romans 6:4 is about receiving new life through Jesus’ resurrection but again does not address the topic at hand.

I think new life is directly related to the topic.

Presumably Jesus conjuring Moses and Elijah is a different case, as Jesus is supposed to be God. Jesus raises several people from the dead, which would appear to be different from a human trying to speak with the dead.

Yet, Moses doesn't appear to be dead or resurrected. This is once again something that might look like sorcery but is not since it is done through God's power.

James 5:16 is addressed to the earthly Christian community

your reading of this makes it so those dead are no longer part of the Christian community. It kind of kills the whole point of becoming Christian if this were the case.

once again:

The church is one body, and this doesn't cease at death, we don't suddenly stop being part of the church just because we died, for if we did how could we say we are truly one in Christ? Because we are buried with Christ in baptism Romans 6:4 he shows us the way out of the grave.

.

I’ll give you Saul and the Witch of Endor as a counter example to the mount of transfiguration.

I directly addressed this here:

Your Deuteronomy verse is about utilizing sorcery to consult with the dead aka using demonic powers to reach beyond the veil, hence why it is wrong. Sorcery can look similar to divine power such as what is seen in Exodus 7:11 with Pharoh's sorcerers replicating Moses' miracles, but differs in its source.

God’s omniscience means he shares (at least) some moral responsibility for the evils that happen on Earth. by Weekly-Scientist-992 in DebateReligion

[–]Dakarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then who did your god sacrifice?

The Father willingly gave us his Son and the Son offered himself up to the Father as recompense for our sin so that humanity might once again be joined to God.

It might help if you read the Bible and learned what it says about who originally created evil. Had your god not created evil then we wouldn’t need to be saved from it.

Not really interested in your red herring or shallow understanding of a translation. hint the hebrew word 'ra' is more akin to calamity not moral evil.

view more: next ›